3. IDENTIFICACIÓN, SELECCIÓN Y VALORACIÓN DE LA EVIDENCIA
4.3. EL PROCESO DESCENTRALIZADOR EN COLOMBIA
4.3.4. Efectos que se hicieron evidentes derivados del proceso descentralizador
This i s the sister variation o f the Queen Bishop Attack and indeed could reasonably be called the Queen Bishop Attack Deferred as the knight development is almost invariably followed by 3 ..tg5.
Black has only two replies which counter the threatened 3 e4 : 2 ... ttlf6 and 2 . . . d5. We shall examine a promising recent offshoot of the first of these, and the latter in its entirety.
riO B
1 2
d4 f5
lbc3 (60)
This logical move renounces
77
queenside play evolving from advancing the c-pawn in favour of central and kingside activity coupled with rapid piece deploy
ment. As in the Queen Bishop Attack, White hopes to damage Black's pawn structure by captur
ing the KN on f6 with his bishop when it cannot be recaptured by a piece. Experience has shown that the doubled f-pawns thus inflicted on the black position are a con
siderable liability obliging Black to play extremely precisely in order to obtain a satisfactory pos
ition. Clearly, therefore, it makes sense to prevent White carrying out this strategy if at all possible and that, indeed, is the common factor in our two recommended defences.
Kouatly-Tseshkovsky Wijk aan Zee I I 1 988 1 d4 rs 2 lLlcJ
78 The Queen Knight Attack: 2 lllc3
2 tt:lf6
3 i.g5 e6
Known for more than a century, until recent years this move had always been considered weak since it allows White to play e4. Many of these earlier games saw Black quickly castling kingside and being crushed by direct attack as a result, whereas the modern strategy looks to effect the much safer long castling.
The reader may care to note that the response previously con
sidered standard here, 3 . . . d5,
The g-pawn thrust makes more sense here than in other positions;
indeed the only example com
monly cited from practice, Hort
Holacek, Havirov 1 97 1 , produced variation, and the search for alter
native defensive methods might well profitably begin by examining 4 . . . .tb4.
4 fe
5 tt:\xe4
The most natural continuation, but two other moves come into
consideration:
(a) 5 f3 offers a gambit in the Staunton mould which certainly brings White compensatory attacking chances after 5 . . . ef 6 .i.e7 when White would be unable to retreat his knight to c3 in the event of a subsequent . . . d5; 7 tt:lf3 was played in a drastic miniature Laird-Finlayson, 1982, which went 7 . . . d5 8 tt:leg5?! tt:\c6 9 Wd2 possession of a black-squared bishop more than offsets his inferior pawn structure; M ileika
Liebert, Riga 196 1 .
5 .te7
6 .txf6
Capturing this way is the most forceful as it permits White to keep up the momentum. Time, Black's
best response to the alternative has yet to be established. After 6 8xf6 + ..txf6 7 h4! capturing on g5 would bring Black an inferior ending following 7 . . . ..txg5 8 -w h5 + g6 9 -.xg5 -.xg5 10 hg, thus Black must seek other ways.
A game Veresov-Pohla, Vilnius 1 972, went 7 . . . 0-0 8 ..td3 -.e7 9 "We2 �c6 10 c3 d5 I I f4 ..td7 1 2 0-0-0 with clearly better chances for White. There is clearly no need for Black to declare his hand in castling so quickly, how
ever, and amongst various poss
ible improvements 7 . . . -.e7!
springs immediately to mind.
6 ..txf6 (61 )
7 -.h5 +
Introduced by Knaak, this aggressive continuation has super
seded the older, straightforward development of 7 �f3. That this quieter variation is not without venom is powerfully and instruc
tively illustrated by the famous brilliancy Ed. Lasker-Thomas,
London 1 9 1 2 : 7 . . . b6 8 ..td3 ..tb7 9 �e5 0-0 10 -.hs -.e7?
I I -.xh7 + !! �xh7 1 2 �xf6 + +
�h6 1 3 �eg4 + �g5 14 h4 + ( 1 4 f4 + !) 14 . . . �f4 1 5 g3 + �f3 1 6 ..te2 + ( 1 6 �fl !) 1 6 . . . �g2 1 7 .a h2 + �g1 1 8 �d2 mate!
Persuasive evidence that Black's safest way of meeting 7 �f3 is to remove the king to the queenside : 7 . . . -.e7 8 ..td3 �c6 9 c3 b6 10 -.e2 ..tb7 I I 0-0-0 (if White castles kingside then Black should follow suit since the white forces are better placed to launch flank attacks, whereas homogeneous castling enhances the importance of Black's centralization) 1 1 . . . 0-0-0 1 2 : he ! �b8 and Black's harmonious and weakness-free position is entirely satisfactory;
Menchik-Flohr, Hastings 1933/34.
7 g6
8 -.h6 -.e7!?
Whether this latest try is the most accurate remains to be established, but it does appear to be more logical to threaten to preserve the KB before being com
mitted to a particular queenside development (see Fedorowicz
Leow below). Other experience so far:
(a) 8 . . . �c6 (acceptance of the pawn gives White too strong an initiative after 8 . . . ..txd4? 9 0-0-0 ..tf6 I 0 h4 etc.) 9 0-0-0!? (the seminal game ·Knaak-Ftacnik,
80 The Queen Knight Attack: 2 lLlc3 Trna va 1 980, went 9 et:lf3 et:lxd4?
1 0 et:lxd4 ..txd4 l l 0-0-0 ..tf6 1 2 h4 'We7 l 3 et:lxf6 + 'Wxf6 1 4 h5 .l:t g8 15 ..td3 and Black was in bad shape; Knaak gives 9 . . . 'We7 l 0 lZl xf6 + 'W xf6 l l 0-0-0 b6 as slightly in White's favour, while it should be noted that l l . . . d6 in this line would transpose to the column game) 9 . . . b6?! (while Black can hardly afford to fall further behind in development by grabbing the d-pawn, the immedi
ate 9 . . . 'We7 would probably transpose to the column) 1 0 et:le2 'We7 l l 'We3 (threatening 1 2 d5) l l . . . ..tg7 12 lt:l2c3 ..tb7 (the positionally appalling 12 . . . d5 was mandatory) 1 3 d5 and Black is in trouble; Fedorowicz-Leow, Philadelphia 1 986.
(b) 8 . . . b6 9 et:lf3 ..tb7 1 0 ..td3 'We7 l l 0-0-0 lt:la6 ( l l . . . et:lc6?
1 2 'Wf4) 1 2 c3 ..tg7 l 3 'We3 0-0-0 1 4 �b1 et:lb8 1 5 .l:t he l et:lc6 with approximately equal chances (cf.
Menchik-Fiohr above); Ash
Yusupov, Winnipeg 1 986.
Thus we can conclude that if Black succeeds in setting up the Ash - Yusupov I Menchik - Flohr type position then his chances are satisfactory, but he must be alert against White's tactical trumps particularly the d5 breakthrough.
9 et:lxf6 + 'Wxf6 10 0-0-0 et:lc6 1 1 et:lf3 d6 ( 62)
Thus Black keeps the white pieces at bay with his small pawn centre while preparing to complete his development by 1 2 . . . ..td7 and 1 3 . . . 0-0-0. After, say, 1 2 ..tc4 ..td7 1 3 .l:t he l 0-0-0, Black has no real problems as the e
pawn is easily defended by . . . : deS, and he can then think in terms of ejecting the white queen either by et:lc6-e7-f5 or et:lc6-d8-f7 followed by mobilizing his king
side minority and increasing the pressure along the half open f-file.
Most of the positions arising from this variation are in fact a kind of mirror image Sicilian where White's attacking chances have been diminished by the loss of an important bishop. Food for thought!
Doubtless with some such con·
siderations in mind, White decided to give up a pawn in order to keep the black monarch in the centre, but his initiative comes to nothing and in regaining the pawn White
permits a decisive counterattack.
12 d5?! ed
13 .tb5 .td7
14 .l:!. hel +
1 4 .txc6 be! 1 5 .l:!. he l + �d8 would leave' Black's king quite safe behind the solid mass of pawns.
14 ti:Je7
15 .txd7 + �xd7 16 ti:Jd4 .l:!. ae8 17 .. h3 +
The apparently powerful rook incursion 1 7 .1:!. e6 would only help spot Black's knockout counter
punch coming.
There is nothing better; 22 '*'d3 would lose a piece after 22 . . . W' xd3.
22 .l:!. el
Speedily concluding the assault
on the opponent's back rank:
Putting the Stonewall stopper on White's e2-e4 is especially valid when the c-pawn is blocked from joining in the central struggle.
Note that 2 . . . g6? would expose Black to the most virulent form of the h-pawn blitzkrieg after 3 h4! in contemporary practice, but Black must also know how to handle the tricky alternatives :
(a) 3 g4 ti:Jf6! 4 gS?! (4 h3 looks relatively best) 4 . . . ti:Je4 5 ti:Jxe4 fe 6 f3 .US and White's unorthodox aggression has clearly backfired;
Spielmann -Mieses, Berlin 1 920.
(b) 3 e4 de 4 f3 (4 .tgS g6 5
82 The Queen Knight Attack : 2 liJc3 I I lLidc3 lLig6 with the initiative;
Beyen-Zwaig, Nice 01. I 974.
(c) 3 ..tf4 is a routine developing move which poses no threat, e.g. 3 . . . lLif6 4 e3 e6 5 lLib5?! (mistakenly middlegame with confidence; V.
Raicevic- Psakhis, Troon 1984.
(d) 3 f3 attempts straightforward occupation of the centre but Black can counter with a lightning infan
try charge which effectively turns the tables : 3 . . . c5! 4 e4 e5! 5 de (alternatives are even less palat
able, e.g. 5 lLixd5 cd and White has problems with e4; 5 ..tb5 + ..id7 6 ..txd7 + lLixd7 7 lLixd5 cd 8 lLie2 fe 9 fe lLifg6 + again due to the weak e-pawn, Pomar-Larsen, Spain I 975) 5 . . . d4 6 ..ic4!? (other satisfactory position for Black;
Rossolimo- Pelikan, Argentina I 959.
3 g6
The usual response, but there are alternatives, hitherto barely explored, which are of potentialJy crucial significance :
(a) 3 . . . c6 4 e3 g6 will in all likelihood transpose to lines similar to the column, while other tries have been shown to lose too much time with the queen in one case : 4 . . . •d6?! 5 ..id3 e5?! 6 de
•xe5 7 lLif3 •c7 8 lLid4 •n 9 •D ± Ghinda-Stanciu, Roman
ian Ch. I 978, and too much time that gambitting the b-pawn would be dubious in a closed position, while direct methods of deahng with the threat would make queen
side castling either less attractive or impossible. That would leave 5 a3, after which at the very least Black would have acquired the additional option of answering 5 . . . lLid7 6 ..id3 with 6 . . . e6. There White in unacceptable material loss after 4 . . . g5 5 e4 ..ig7 (cf.
Chapter 7, p. 72), the whole raison d'etre of White's system seems to be called into question.
In the only top class example of it
so far, White replied 4 ..tf4 and after 4 . . . lZ:lf6 5 e4!? (acknowledg
ing that normal methods give White nothing) 5 . . . fe 6 f3 ..tf5 7 fe de 8 ..tc4 e6 Black had obtained
a slightly improved version of a Staunton Gambit vanatton already considered completely sat
isfactory for Black; Ligterink
Belyavsky, Wijk aan Zee 1984.
4 h4
This advance of the h-pawn is the keystone of White's strategy : strategically, it reinforces the play on the dark squares, while tact
ically it readies the h4-h5 rupture.
4 ..tg7
5 e3 (64)
The usual move, opening the queen's path along the d l -h5 diagonal. Alternatively, White rnay opt for immediately intensify
ing his dark square play and
pre-paring long castling by 5 Wd2.
This continuation contains hidden venom and Black must tread warily to avoid the many pitfalls as the following vanatiOns demonstrate: 5 . . . c6 6 lZ:lf3 lZ:ld7?!
(natural but inaccurate; 6 . . . h6 is necessary, with fair chances of maintaining the balance, although it is clear that Black's task is the more onerous, e.g. 7 ..tf4 lZ:ld7 8 0-0-0 lllgf6 9 lZ:le5 lZ:le4! I 0 lZ:lxe4 lZ:lxe5! and by precise play White is prevented from building any advantage) 7 h5 h6 (were White now to retreat the bishop then all would be fine in the black camp after 8 . . . g5, but instead White sacrifices a piece for a dangerous attack) 8 hg! hg 9 : h7! .=. xh7 (forced, after 9 . . . ..tf6 or 9 . . .
�f8. simply 1 0 lZ:lxg5 is crushing) 10 gh lZ:lgf6 I I Wxg5 �f7 ( I I . . . �f8 puts up stiffer resistance although Black clearly remains under immense pressure after, for example, 1 2 Wh4! �f7 1 3 e3) 1 2 Wxf5 lZ:lb6 1 3 lZ:le5 + � f8 14 Wf4 and Black's defensive task is hope
less; Vaganian-Knezevic, Dubna 1973.
White has also occasionally experimented with 5 lZ:lh3 but this should not cause Black undue problems after simply 5 . . . lZ:lf6 threatening an early . . . lZ:le4.
5 ..te6
This initially · strange-looking
84 The Queen Knight Attack: 2 tt'Jd move is aimed at shoring up the kingside defences, a useful task for the otherwise torpid QB. A good example of the type of attack White can whip up if this prophy
lactic manoeuvre is omitted is pro
vided by the game Bareev-Dreev, Soviet U20 Ch. 1 983: 5 . . . c6 6 pressure, but it is still not too late for 6 . . . ..te6, e.g. 7 �f3 �d7 8 h5!? position where White has cashed in his initiative for a spatial advan
tage on the king's wing, the advanced outpost of which (the h
pawn) could one day turn into a liability; chances are approxi
mately equal; Palatnik-Legky, Tallinn 1985) 7 h5!? �xh5 8 .:1. xh5 gh 9 'it'xh5 + �f8 1 0 �f3 'it'e8 1 1 'it'h2 e6 1 2 0-0-0 (for the exchange, White has lasting pressure due to
the superior coordination of his forces and the vulnerability of the black king) 1 2 . . . �d7 l 3 g4! fg 14 �h4 �f6 1 5 f3 'it'h5?! 1 6 'it'f4 'it'l7 1 7 'it'd6 + 'it'e7 1 8 'it'g3 �e8 1 9 fg .:tg8?? (cracking under the pressure, but in any case it is difficult to imagine Black surviv
ing in the long run) 20 ..txh7 .:1. h8 21 �g6 'it'd7 22 �e5! 'it'c7 23 ..tg6 + �e7 24 .:t fl .:tf8 25 'it'h4 b5 26 ..td3 1 -0 .
This exchange sacrifice attack plays such an important role in this variation that it is worth quot
ing one further example, this time arising from 5 . . . �f6 : 6 h5!? �xh5 thus far we have followed Vaiser
M. Knezevic, Havana 1 985, where White decided to restore material parity by 16 �g5 + .:1. xg5 1 7 'it'xg5 thus giving Black much needed time to develop and coordinate his pieces, something which would not have been at all easy to achieve after the more ambitious 1 6 'it'xh7 + ! �e8 1 7 'it' h 5 + ..t l7 1 8 'it'xf5 ± .
6 �£3
The most natural continuation,
although alternatives such as 6 8h3 and 6 'ii'f3 will doubtless be explored in the future.
6 c6
It is difficult for Black to get by without this reinforcement of the d-pawn, e.g. 6 . . . l2ld7 7 h5 h6 8 hg! hg 9 : xh8 .txh8 1 0 l2lxg5 8f8 1 1 'ii'h5 .i.g7 1 2 l2lxe6 l2lxe6 13 •xf5 'ii'd6 14 l2lxd5 and the horde of white infantry has every chance of marching to victory;
Palatnik-Fadeyev, Ukraine Ch.
1 984.
1'>5 B
7 .tf4 (65)
By vacating g5 for the k night, White indirectly prepares the h
pawn thrust. The straightforward 7 .td3 occurred in VI. Kovacevic
K ristiansen, Plovdiv 1 983, which provides us with a good example of how Black should respond in the event of an exchange of rooks along the h-file : 7 . . . l2ld7 8 h5 ll:lgf6 (as is so often the case, Black dare not allow the passive bishop sacrifice 8 . . . h6? 9 hg! hg I 0 .1:1 xh8
.txh8 1 t l2lxg5 l2lf8 1 2 g7! .i.xg7 1 3 'ii'h5 + �d7 14 l2lxe6 with a crushing advantage) 9 hg hg 1 0
: xh8 .txh8 1 1 l2le2 (not I I 'ii'e2 l2le4! + or 1 1 �e2 'ii'b6 with . . . c5 in the air) 1 1 . . . .tf7 1 2 l2lf4 l2le4 1 3 �e2 and now instead of 1 3 . . . l2lf8?! 14 'ii'h 1 .tf6 1 5 .i.h6 l2le6 1 6 g4! ± as happened in the game, VI. Kovacevic gives 1 3 . . . .tf6 14 .txf6 ef 1 5 'ii'h 1 'ii'e7 16 'ii'h6 l2lf8 1 7 c3 producing an unclear position with chances for both sides.
7 l2lf6
8 h5! l2l bd7!
Acceptance of the offer would lead Black into the usual defensive morass : 8 . . . l2lxh5 9 .l: xh5! gh 1 0 l2lg5 .i.g8 1 1 'ii' xh5 + � f8 1 2 .i.d3 e6 l 3 g4 h 6 14 l2lf3 ..t f7 1 5 'ii' h3 with lasting pressure; Halif
man-Lerner, Kubishev 1 986.
9 h6
The sacrifice being declined, there is really very little else for White to do apart from pushing back the bishop and gaining space.
We have already seen from the note to White's seventh that exchanging along the h-file brings nothing.
9 1 0 1 1
'ii'd2 l2le5
.tf8 .tf7 e6 (66) This is an appropriate moment to take stock of the situation. Whi
te's advanced h-
p
awn means that86 The Queen Knight Attack: l lt)d
Black is somewhat cramped on the kingside, but equally the blocked position ensures a fair degree of safety for his king. Black's central grip is satisfactory and there are prospects for creating counterplay on the queen's wing. All in all, chances are nicely balanced.
12 f3
Naturally, White seeks to open up new fronts either by g4 or e4.
1 2 ..te7
13 g4?!
This impetuosity should have backfired; completing develop
ment by 1 3 0-0-0 was correct.
13 �xe5
14 ..txe5 fg
15 fg 0-0
1 6 .tel ..td6?!
Black misses his opportunity.
Halifman points out that 16 . . .
�d7! 1 7 ..tg3 ..tg5 would have given Black a slight advantage, while 1 7 ..tg7 .l:l e8 1 8 0-0-0 ..tg5 would also leave White poorly placed to create active play.
67 w
17 ..txd6 18 0-0-0 1 9 g5
Wxd6 e5
�d7?! (67)
The knight is exposed to attack here and would better have been tucked away by 1 9 . . . �e8 with good defensive chances.
20 e4!
Energetically opening up the centre the better to expose the inadequacies of Black's setup.
20 b5
To chase the knight away from c3.
21 ed b4
22 �e4 Wxd5
23 ..tg4!
Astutely breaking Black's coun
terplay by fingering the weak spot in his position.
23 Wxe4
There is no real choice; 23 . . . ..te6 24 ..txe6 Wxe6 25 d5 is crushing, while 23 . . . Wxa2 24 Wxb4 .l:l ab8 25 Wa3 Wxa3 26 ba ..td5 27 .l:l he l also leaves Black in a bad way.
24 .i.xd7 ll ad8 Black's prospects in the ending a rising after 24 . . . -.xd4 25 -.xd4 ed 26 .II xd4 would be grim.
25 de -.xeS
26 : hel -. as
27 b3! cS
Of course, 27 . . . -.xa2?? would Jose instantly to 28 -.d4, and 27 . . . .i.d5 28 Jl e7 would also be dreadful.
28 �bl
A voiding the trap 2S -.d6 .:. xd7! 29 -.e5 (29 -.xd7 c4 would give Black dangerous chances) 29 . . . -.a3 + 30 �b I .i.xb3! 3 1 ab .:. df7 when Black is still fighting.
28 -.c7
29 c4!
With this the white queen finally gains access to the long diagonal thus compelling Black to shed a pawn and enter into a hopeless end game. The technical part con
cluded as follows: 29 . . . -.g3 30 -.b2 -.c3 3 1 -.xc3 be 32 �c2
� h8 (pathetically underlining Black's plight) 33 : f1 .i.gS 34 l:. xf8 Jl xf8 35 �xc3 li dS 36 .i.g4 :e8 37 lld7 a5 3S lla7 : e5 39 : xa5 Jl xg5 40 .i.d7 Jl g3 + 4 1
�d2 ll g2 + 42 �e3 : g5 4 3 : as .:. e5 + 44 �d2 g5 45 .i.c6 1 -0 .